Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 388 -- GOP Nearly Bottomed Out In 2006.

Almost-Sweep Presents Opportunities For 2008-

Americans for Tax Reform notes that, in a slightly right-of-center country, a big victory for the left means big vulnerability in the next election (.pdf).

Indeed, that number might even be slightly higher now, with Republican Henry Bonilla losing to far-left lunatic Ciro Rodriguez last week in the special runoff election.

In 2004, President Bush won 51% of the popular vote. A mandate, sure, and the first outright majority since 1988 (yes, Bill Clinton didn't even win a majority of the popular vote against Bob Dole), but not really a Reagan-style landslide. In other words, there is every reason to believe that a strong Republican candidate in 2008, with some moderate coattails, would win 51 or 52% of the national popular vote and help elect Republicans in a dozen or two of the "red" districts currently held by Democrats.

If in 2008 the Republicans only won those districts that performed 58% or more for Bush in 2004, they would pick up 20 seats.

If in 2008, the Republicans only win those districts that performed 55% or more for Bush in 2004, they would pick up 33 seats.

Now, neither of those things is going to happen, but compare those facts to these facts:

If in 2008, the Democrats win all of the districts that performed 58% or better for Kerry in 2005, they would pick up zero seats. They already control those seats.

If in 2008, the Democrats win all of the districts that performed 55% or better for Kerry in 2005, they would pick up zero seats. They already control those seats.

Republicans just have far fewer vulnerable seats than Democrats do, for 2008.

Indeed, if these eight Republicans elected in Kerry-leaning districts could survive the massacre of 2006, they can all probably survive just about anything:

Sure, they are all, by definition, "at risk" or "vulnerable," but they each showed some serious survival skills, and it is difficult to imagine any of them losing with a strong Republican at the top of the ticket.

Meanwhile, here are the Democrats holding seats won by President Bush in 2004:

Some of these are flukish victories for the Democrats. Last-minute redistricting and Republicans having to field a write-in candidate in Texas, a few totally unrelated scandals in Ohio and Florida, and so on, enabled Democrats to pick up several seats they wouldn't have even won in this massacre of an election year under normal circumstances.

Add in the inevitable (eventual) retirements of some of those 60%+ Bush district incumbent Democrats, and we're looking at a significant turn of fortune in the next several years, simply based on structural things.

With the 2010 Census and reapportionment also looking extraordinarily favorable for Republicans (to the tune of approximately ten additional net seats given to GOP-leaning states at the expense of liberal states), the Democrats shouldn't get too comfy in their new offices.

And these are just the overarching structural things, not even the certain ensuing political developments that will undoubtedly take some of the shine off of the current Democrat honeymoon. Add those political developments in, and there is ample reason for optimism among Republicans.